BabelCite

Yadav Dhananjay Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1461/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 June 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 20 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 3 August 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made after a hearing on 27 May 2021 of a petition/appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 30 November 2018.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] .

Case No.HCAL 1461/2021[2026] HKCFI 3520
Court
High Court CFI
Date25 Jun 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1461/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1461 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Yadav Dhananjay Singh Applicant
  and  
  Torture Claims Appeal Board / Putative
  Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Respondent
  and  
  Director of Immigration Putative
    Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

    consideration of the documents only;          or
   consideration of the documents and the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Board as putative respondent and the Director of Immigration (instead of the Board) as a putative interested party; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 20 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 3 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 27 May 2021 of a petition/appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 30 November 2018.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is an Indian national; his non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of harm from his girlfriend’s family.  The Applicant alleged that if he returns to India, he will be harmed or killed by her family members because they strictly disapprove of their interfaith relationship, owing to the fact that he is Hindu and she is Muslim.

3.The Board dismissed the petition/appeal and confirmed the DI’s decision after finding that the Applicant was not a credible witness and had fabricated his claim.  His narrative was undermined by massive and irreconcilable contradictions between his written claim form and his oral testimony.  These discrepancies involved his movements to Hyderabad and Delhi, whether his girlfriend had accompanied him and the details of his alleged detention by the Indian police.  Consequently, the Board concluded that the Applicant faced no genuine or personal risk of harm upon return, failing to establish any valid claim under persecution risk, torture risk, BOR 2 or BOR 3.

4.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision.  He just stated that he would be still in danger.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant said he did not want to say anything on his substantive challenge against the Board’s Decision. 

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously.  I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors.  I therefore dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 25th day of June 2026

  (Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence



Notes for the Applicant:

If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:

        
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);

b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and

c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
   Sent to the Applicant on 25th June 2026

Yadav Dhananjay Singh

Applicant’s ref. no.:
Nil.		   Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 25th June 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14831/18/12/188/IN2940

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4049/18 (formerly RBCZ 12740/16)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1